// head_to_head

Claude Opus 4.5 vs MiniMax M3

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher, MiniMax M3 costs less — it depends on your workload.

Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead by 5.3 points overall, and MiniMax M3 lists 19× cheaper per blended million tokens. Whether 5.3 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you. MiniMax M3 also leads on measured cost per point of capability, at $0.0339 per point.

anthropic

Claude Opus 4.5

Blended / 1M
$10.00
Context
200K
Released
Nov 24, 2025
Overall score
72.6
reasoningtool callingfile inputimage inputprompt caching

minimax

MiniMax M3

Blended / 1M
$0.525
Context
1.0M
Released
May 31, 2026
Overall score
67.3
reasoningtool callingimage inputvideo inputprompt caching

Specs and pricing

MetricClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax M3
LiveBench overall

Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

72.6win67.3
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.3211$0.0339win
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$10.00$0.525win
Input price / 1M$5.00$0.300win
Output price / 1M$25.00$1.20win
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$0.500$0.060win
Context window200K1.0Mwin
Max output tokens64K512Kwin

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Claude Opus 4.5 on top, MiniMax M3 below, both out of 100.

Agentic codingtoo close to call
39.7
40.7
Coding
79.7
68.2
Reasoning
80.1
74.5
Mathematics
90.4
76.9
Data analysis
74.4
76.2
Language
81.3
76.8
Instruction following
62.5
57.5

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadClaude Opus 4.5MiniMax M3
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$2876.00/mo$150.72/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$3700.00/mo$216.00/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$3480.00/mo$201.60/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$6650.00/mo$378.00/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$12,750/mo$750.00/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

You are running this at volume

MiniMax M3

Lowest measured cost per point of capability at $0.0339 per point — the gap compounds with every request.

Quality matters more than the bill

Claude Opus 4.5

Highest overall LiveBench score of the two at 72.6.

You need to fit large documents in one call

MiniMax M3

Wider context window — 1.0M against 200K.

Claude Opus 4.5 vs MiniMax M3 FAQ

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiniMax M3?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher, MiniMax M3 costs less — it depends on your workload. Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead by 5.3 points overall, and MiniMax M3 lists 19× cheaper per blended million tokens. Whether 5.3 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you. MiniMax M3 also leads on measured cost per point of capability, at $0.0339 per point.

Is Claude Opus 4.5 cheaper than MiniMax M3?

MiniMax M3 is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Claude Opus 4.5 lists at $10.00 per million tokens and MiniMax M3 at $0.525 — MiniMax M3 is 19× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Claude Opus 4.5 charges $5.00 in and $25.00 out, MiniMax M3 charges $0.300 and $1.20 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.

Claude Opus 4.5 vs MiniMax M3: which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores 72.6 and MiniMax M3 scores 67.3 overall on LiveBench, the mean of its seven categories. That is a 5.3-point lead for Claude Opus 4.5. Category scores differ from the overall figure — a model can lead on reasoning and trail on coding, which the per-category table above breaks out.

Which gives better value for money, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiniMax M3?

MiniMax M3. Cost per point divides the measured dollars LiveBench spent running the benchmark by the score it earned, so it captures something token pricing misses: a reasoning model can emit many times more tokens than its per-token rate suggests. Claude Opus 4.5 works out at $0.3211 per point and MiniMax M3 at $0.0339.

Does Claude Opus 4.5 or MiniMax M3 have a bigger context window?

MiniMax M3 has the larger context window: 200K for Claude Opus 4.5 against 1.0M for MiniMax M3. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.

Do Claude Opus 4.5 and MiniMax M3 support prompt caching?

Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.500 per million for Claude Opus 4.5 and $0.060 for MiniMax M3, against full input rates of $5.00 and $0.300. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • ScoresLiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.